PDA

View Full Version : NRA TO CHALLENGE TO SAN DIEGO POLICY ON CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS


SDlocal
05-11-2010, 10:40 AM
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=5809

NRA/CRPA FOUNDATION LEGAL ACTION PROJECT SUPPORTS LEGAL CHALLENGE TO SAN DIEGO POLICY ON CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Attorneys for the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation and several individual plaintiffs recently filed an amended Complaint in U.S. District Court in San Diego challenging San Diego Sheriff William Gore’s policies in issuing permits to carry concealed firearms. The lawsuit alleges that San Diego’s policies are illegal and unconstitutional in multiple respects, one of which is that they infringe of the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The lawsuit seeks to stop San Diego’s arbitrary and capricious denial of permits to law abiding county residents.

The case challenges the application of California Penal Code section 12050, which allows a sheriff or police chief to issue a permit where “the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance,” and that the person is a resident of that county. Under this law, sheriffs and chiefs of police often implement subjective standards for “good cause,” as well as residency requirements that are not constitutionally permissible. The Complaint was originally filed in October 2009 by a local activist. It survived a motion brought by the County to dismiss the case. In the Order denying that motion, the Judge confirmed that the constitutional claims were valid, and that the County’s arbitrary permit issuance policy may very well be unconstitutional. The amended Complaint adds both more plaintiffs and more legal claims for relief. Documents relating to the case are posted at www.calgunlaws.com.

The lawsuit is being funded by the NRA / CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP). LAP is a joint venture between the Nation Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Dark Paladin
05-11-2010, 11:38 AM
Interesting. Is this the Peruta case?

wildhawker
05-11-2010, 11:50 AM
Yes, it's been known for some time that CDM would be stepping in as lead counsel for Peruta.

elenius
05-11-2010, 11:57 AM
Interesting. Is there anything different in principle between this case and Sykes? Are there advantages of working on multiple fronts simultaneously? Or is this just a defensive move to make sure that a case that was already started doesn't get screwed up?

Zhukov
05-11-2010, 12:24 PM
A good lawyer running the show is a pretty big difference :P

bwiese
05-11-2010, 12:26 PM
Now we're on full steam!

Gray Peterson
05-11-2010, 12:29 PM
Yes, it's been known for some time within some closed circlesthat CDM would be stepping in as lead counsel for Peruta.

Fixed it for you.

CCWFacts
05-11-2010, 12:35 PM
Ah, wow, I am truly relieved to hear this. My opinion of Mr. Peruta has gone up by a big jump based on this news. I was worried that his case was going to be a disaster.

Does this situation help the CCW efforts jump ahead of the Gorski impending train wreck?

N6ATF
05-11-2010, 3:43 PM
Yes, it's been known for some time that CDM would be stepping in as lead counsel for Peruta.

Some time? What time? To a slightly-more-than-casual-observer, it looked like Peruta was at loggerheads with the entire gun rights legal community as recently as a couple months ago, or less.

Seeing Gray's edit, was that part of the plan? Closed circles supporting in private, while battling in public?

Don't answer honestly, otherwise we might think Gorski is an ally too. LOL

spgripside
05-11-2010, 4:30 PM
It seems Michel has taken over this case, and is attempting to add some more credible plaintiffs through these motions (http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/NRA.Peruta/peruta%20motion%20for%20leave%20to%20file%20amende d%20complaint.pdf). Peruta's sounding better all the time, a lot like Sykes. Thanks for the help on this one.

Sean

CCWFacts
05-11-2010, 4:42 PM
It seems Michel has taken over this case, and is attempting to add some more credible plaintiffs through these motions (http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/NRA.Peruta/peruta%20motion%20for%20leave%20to%20file%20amende d%20complaint.pdf). Peruta's sounding better all the time, a lot like Sykes. Thanks for the help on this one.

That is really fantastic. Peruta himself is not the kind of plaintiff who is a good choice for this case, due to so many things in his background.

My esteem for the guy has really gone up. He's taking the high road here, setting California up for a win.

elenius
05-11-2010, 4:45 PM
It seems Michel has taken over this case, and is attempting to add some more credible plaintiffs through these motions (http://www.calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/NRA.Peruta/peruta%20motion%20for%20leave%20to%20file%20amende d%20complaint.pdf). Peruta's sounding better all the time, a lot like Sykes. Thanks for the help on this one.

Sean

Sweet.

Gray Peterson
05-11-2010, 4:54 PM
Some time? What time? To a slightly-more-than-casual-observer, it looked like Peruta was at loggerheads with the entire gun rights legal community as recently as a couple months ago, or less.

Seeing Gray's edit, was that part of the plan? Closed circles supporting in private, while battling in public?

Don't answer honestly, otherwise we might think Gorski is an ally too. LOL

No, that's not what it is. A few of us knew and had ways of checking on the progress of the case, but I decided not to publicly post it because I wanted to wait for the Chuck Michel to make the announcement himself via his methods. A Press Release announcement from the NRA posts it far and wide and allows it to get the proper attention.

Contrast this to my posting about Jacobs v. Reed. "JustLegalInformation" posted about the Jacobs case in San Jose when in his thread praising the Rothery filings, so it became public information that anyone can dig into pretty easily, thus the docket RECAPing.

The battling between Peruta and others here occured back in January, IIRC. The amended complaint was filed three weeks ago, or rather the motion to amend the complaint.

Sobriquet
05-11-2010, 5:44 PM
Superb news indeed! Good hunting, Chuck. We may have dodged a bullet.

jshoebot
05-11-2010, 5:44 PM
So this case will be decided post-mcdonald? Or will it be coming to fruition pretty soon? I haven't really been keeping abreast of all the cases so I'm pretty uninformed on this one. Exciting stuff though!

ned946
05-11-2010, 6:17 PM
MONEY....where do I send it?

This stuff doesn't happen for no charge and I want to see is succeed! :usa:

spgripside
05-11-2010, 6:37 PM
MONEY....where do I send it?

This stuff doesn't happen for no charge and I want to see is succeed! :usa:

CGF (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/donate) does much good with donations.

Sean

bwiese
05-11-2010, 7:04 PM
This particular matter was not a CGF matter and was done by CRPA Foundation, whom the folks at CGF are certainly glad to see in the fight!

While Gene and I lead CGF, we are also on the board of the CRPA and heartily encourage support of CRPA and its Foundation.

You can donate to CRPA Foundation here:

http://www.crpa.org/_e/dept/06/The_CRPA_Foundation.htm

Joe
05-11-2010, 7:14 PM
Pretty awesome. Glad to see another lawsuit.

SDlocal
05-11-2010, 7:32 PM
My handle means San Diego local! Money sent to CRPA!

bulgron
05-11-2010, 7:39 PM
Now we're on full steam!

I'm really hoping this isn't true, as I'm expecting at least two other legal actions to kick off in CA sometime this year. :)

spgripside
05-11-2010, 7:43 PM
This particular matter was not a CGF matter and was done by CRPA Foundation, whom the folks at CGF are certainly glad to see in the fight!

While Gene and I lead CGF, we are also on the board of the CRPA and heartily encourage support of CRPA and its Foundation.

You can donate to CRPA Foundation here:

http://www.crpa.org/_e/dept/06/The_CRPA_Foundation.htm

Thank you for the clarification. I just joined CRPA and am waiting on a membership # to send petitions (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=297877) to Gene. Thanks to all for the great fight.

Sean

1JimMarch
05-11-2010, 8:25 PM
The biggest difference between Mr. Paruta as a plaintiff and all other plaintiffs in any other Cali CCW case going (Gura, Gorski, whatever) is that Mr. Peruta can complain about California's discrimination against out-of-state residents, bringing that issue to the fore sooner than it otherwise would.

The other cool thing Chuck did is, he found another plaintiff who used to be a paid-up member of the sheriff's buddies, had CCW at that point, quit the "buddies club" and couldn't get CCW no more. That's gonna hurt the other side, bigtime.

What this lawsuit lacks is significant minority/gay plaintiffs, but post-McDonald that shouldn't matter much.

Chuck's problem is that, I think, he's actually past the deadline for filing an amended complaint, at least to a point where he's got to beg permission to file an amended complaint. I don't know what his odds are either way. If the amended complaint dies, well...Mr. Peruta's original complaint isn't that bad and they could go forward with it.

One other thing. This was filed 4/22/10, pretty similar to the filing timing Gorski used and likely for similar reasons: no chance for a summary judgement until after McDonald hits.

And while Chuck isn't citing McDonald directly like Gorski did, Chuck DOES state a 14th Amendment incorporation claim as if McDonald was in the bag...which is fine because it probably is unless we get a really horrible surprise. So yet again we see Gorski and Chuck doing very similar things.

Window_Seat
05-11-2010, 8:31 PM
I'm really hoping this isn't true, as I'm expecting at least two other legal actions to kick off in CA sometime this year. :)

The more of the offensive we are on (we being the entire GR community here in CA), the more we win, no? I'm looking at this as good news.

Erik.

wildhawker
05-11-2010, 8:51 PM
Jim, have you read Sykes?

bulgron
05-11-2010, 8:54 PM
The more of the offensive we are on (we being the entire GR community here in CA), the more we win, no? I'm looking at this as good news.

Erik.

Oh, absolutely this is good news.

It's just that I don't see us as "on full steam" yet. :D

I'm quite hopeful, however, that we'll be on "full steam" shortly after McDonald is announced.

Window_Seat
05-11-2010, 8:56 PM
Oh, absolutely this is good news.

It's just that I don't see us as "on full steam" yet. :D

I'm quite hopeful, however, that we'll be on "full steam" shortly after McDonald is announced.

Ahaaa, I get it... :scratching head::D

Erik.

dantodd
05-11-2010, 9:03 PM
And while Chuck isn't citing McDonald directly like Gorski did, Chuck DOES state a 14th Amendment incorporation claim as if McDonald was in the bag...which is fine because it probably is unless we get a really horrible surprise. So yet again we see Gorski and Chuck doing very similar things.

Asserting that the 2nd should be incorporated is a far cry from citing a case that WILL incorporate it on the assumption of knowing the outcome the case in question.

1JimMarch
05-11-2010, 9:19 PM
Yes, I've read Sykes. All of the Sykes plaintiffs are fully in-state Cali residents.

Gura can't attack on that particular point...in fact, plaintiffs like Paruta who are true dual-state-residents are rare as hell.

Paladin
05-11-2010, 9:55 PM
I am really happy to hear some good news on the Shall Issue front, esp after reading Gene's accessment the other day of the damage Gorski's case could do.

I'd like to hear what Gene/Bill have to say re this question: Does this situation help the CCW efforts jump ahead of the Gorski impending train wreck?

GuyW
05-11-2010, 10:48 PM
Hmmm - I thought this was to be a clandestine operation....
.

wildhawker
05-11-2010, 10:51 PM
The fallacy is that no one is really a "resident" of two places at one time. As such, the protections against the chilling, abridgment or abrogation of fundamental rights, via the 14A, apply to all located within the United States but for certain, limited circumstances.

Yes, I've read Sykes. All of the Sykes plaintiffs are fully in-state Cali residents.

Gura can't attack on that particular point...in fact, plaintiffs like Paruta who are true dual-state-residents are rare as hell.

wildhawker
05-11-2010, 10:53 PM
I am really happy to hear some good news on the Shall Issue front, esp after reading Gene's accessment the other day of the damage Gorski's case could do.

I'd like to hear what Gene/Bill have to say re this question:

There is nothing that can be done to move Sykes or Peruta ahead of the cases already before CA9.

hoffmang
05-11-2010, 11:20 PM
Yes, I've read Sykes. All of the Sykes plaintiffs are fully in-state Cali residents.

Gura can't attack on that particular point...in fact, plaintiffs like Paruta who are true dual-state-residents are rare as hell.

The right to travel is intrastate as well as interstate. There is no distinction under the law on this issue.

And no, this case is no further along in a way that couldn't be hurt by Gorski's current appeals.

-Gene

Paladin
05-12-2010, 6:53 AM
And no, this case is no further along in a way that couldn't be hurt by Gorski's current appeals.

-GeneThanks, Gene. Didn't realize Gorski before the 9th. Am trying NOT to spend much time on forums these days. I just drop in to hear good things like AZ going Constitutional Carry and IO going Shall Issue, but bad things like Gorski keep dragging me back online . . . .

7 weeks or less to McDonald!

tango-52
05-16-2010, 9:19 AM
So it appears that in order to get a CCW in San Diego County, not only do I need extraordinary Good Cause, I need to pay annual dues to the Honorary Deputy Sheriff's Association. Gee, I wonder if that group is campaigning for Gore?

tango-52
05-17-2010, 7:23 AM
Here are links to a set of articles discussing the wider implication of a potential positive outcome in theis case.



http://www.examiner.com/x-26553-LA-History-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Right-to-carry-a-concealed-handgun-passes-hurdle--Part-1



http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-26553-LA-History-Examiner~y2010m5d12-Right-to-carry-a-concealed-handgun-passes-hurdle--Part-2